Piyush Traders & Credits (P) Ltd., Kolkata v. ITO, Ward-5(2), Kolkata

ITA 476/KOL/2020 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2021 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 47623514 RSA 2020
Assessee PAN AABCP5242K
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 476/KOL/2020
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Piyush Traders & Credits (P) Ltd., Kolkata
Respondent ITO, Ward-5(2), Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 15-03-2021
Date Of Final Hearing 10-03-2021
Next Hearing Date 10-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 09-03-2021
First Hearing Date 09-03-2021
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 13-08-2020
Judgment Text
ITA NO.476/KOL/2020 PIYUSH TRADERS & CREDITS PVT. LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 1 | P A GE B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY AM AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY JM] I.T.A. NO. 476/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PIYUSH TRADERS & CREDITS PVT. LTD. (PAN: AABCP 5242 K) VS. ITO WARD-5(2) KOLKATA APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING (VIRTUAL) 10.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.03.2021 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI MIRAJ D SHAH A.R FOR THE RESPONDENT SMT. RANU BISWAS ADDL. CIT ORDER PER SHRI A. T. VARKEY JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2 KOLKATA DATED 23.09.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DEL AY OF 103 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION APPLICATION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT CITING THE REASONS GIVEN FOR CONDONING THE DELAY WHICH WE FIND TO BE REASONABLE . THEREFORE WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S HRI MIRAJ D SHAH DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) IS AN EX PARTE ORDER. ACCORDING TO LD. A.R IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE AO HA S ADDED THE ENTIRE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 2 00 00 000/- ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS AND PRINCIP AL OFFICERS OF THE SEVEN (7) SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET PROPER OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO BECAUSE THE DIRECTORS WER E OUT OF STATION AND THEREFORE COULD NOT APPEAR THEMSELVES WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS ETC. AS DIRECTED BY THE AO. HOWEVER THE LD. A.R UNDERTAKES THAT IF AN OPPORTUN ITY IS GIVEN THEN THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.476/KOL/2020 PIYUSH TRADERS & CREDITS PVT. LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 2 | P A GE COMPANY WOULD BE ABLE TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF ALL S HARE-SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH BOOKS AS DIRECTED BY HIM. PER CONTRA THE LD. D.R THOUGH EXPRESSED HIS DISPLEASURE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) HOWEVER WAS NOT AVERSE TO THE MATTER BEING RESTORE D BEFORE THE AO. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS WE NOTE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN PASSE D WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE I.E. IT IS AN EX-PARTE ORDER . WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2 00 00 000/- BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUC E DIRECTORS OF THE SEVEN (7) SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES. ACCORDING TO LD. A.R THE D IRECTORS WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE OFFICE OF THE AO BECAUSE DIRECTORS WERE OUT OF STATION AND SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED THE AO PASSED THE ORDER IN 31 ST MARCH 2014; AND IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE DIRECTORS HAD APPEAR ED BEFORE AO IN THE FIRST WEEK OF APRIL 2015 ITSELF. BE THAT AS IT MAY BE THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TIN BOX COMPANY VS. CIT REPORTED IN (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) HAS HELD THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY NEED TO BE GIVEN BY THE AO TO TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TIN BOX CO . (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 1. IT IS UNNECESSARY TO GO INTO GREAT DETAIL IN TH ESE MATTERS FOR THERE IS A STATEMENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE FACT-FINDING AUTHORITY THAT READS THUS : 'WE WILL STRAIGHTAWAY AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE'S SUB MISSION THAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD.' 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PLACED EVIDENCE BEF ORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS REALLY OF NO CONSEQUENCE FOR IT IS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT COUNTS. THAT ORDER MUST BE MADE AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVE N A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SELLING OUT HIS CASE. WE THEREFORE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER GIVING TO THE ASSESSEE A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. TWO QUESTIONS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF WHICH THE SECOND QUESTION IS NOT PRESSED. THE FIRST QUESTION READS THUS : '1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SPITE OF A FINDING ARRIVED AT BY IT THAT THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE ?' 4. IN OUR OPINION THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WHICH IS INHERENT IN THE QUESTION ITSELF : IN THE NEGATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES-SEE. ITA NO.476/KOL/2020 PIYUSH TRADERS & CREDITS PVT. LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 3 | P A GE 5. THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER UNDER CHALLEN GE IS SET ASIDE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND OF THE TRIBU NAL ARE ALSO SET ASIDE. THE MATTER SHALL NOW BE REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR FRES H CONSIDERATION AS AFORESTATED. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THE ISSUE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WIT H PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 00 00 000/- BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DIRECTED TO ENSURE THAT ASSESSE E PRODUCES THE DIRECTORS OF SEVEN (7) SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES ALONG WITH DOCUMENT S AS DIRECTED BY THE AO. NEEDLESS TO SAY PROPER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO BRING EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND TH E AO TO PASS REASONED ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MARCH 2021. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (A. T. V ARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15.03.2021 SB SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT- PIYUSH TRADERS & CREDITS PVT. LTD. 19 S YNAGOUGE STREET KOLKATA- 700001. 2. RESPONDENT ITO WARD-5(2) KOLKATA 3. THE CIT(A)- 2 KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) 4. CIT- KOLKATA 5. DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA